L' Eomot Inversé (5/20/2013)I simply can't understand why any rational person would take the view that Windows 8 is a disaster ...Too many such sites cover almost only (mostly imaginary) cons, because any any pro comment causes a series of silly ad-hominem attacks against its writer which deters any subsequent pro comment.

Tom: would it be out of line to point out that you decry the use of ad hominem attacks to discourage posting counter arguments, but you yourself dismiss anybody who disagrees with your premise as lacking in rationality? I get that you want to discourage the use of hyperbole (even if one doesn't love the Windows 8 interface, calling it a "disaster" may be overkill), but you seem to fall into a similar trap yourself (if one feels compelled to rail against Windows 8 then one must be an irrational person).

L' Eomot Inversé (5/20/2013)I simply can't understand why any rational person would take the view that Windows 8 is a disaster ...Too many such sites cover almost only (mostly imaginary) cons, because any any pro comment causes a series of silly ad-hominem attacks against its writer which deters any subsequent pro comment.

Tom: would it be out of line to point out that you decry the use of ad hominem attacks to discourage posting counter arguments, but you yourself dismiss anybody who disagrees with your premise as lacking in rationality? I get that you want to discourage the use of hyperbole (even if one doesn't love the Windows 8 interface, calling it a "disaster" may be overkill), but you seem to fall into a similar trap yourself (if one feels compelled to rail against Windows 8 then one must be an irrational person).

Steve, you make a good point, but to be fair, Tom was attacked first. Patrick was less than kind in his phrasing.

L' Eomot Inversé (5/20/2013)I simply can't understand why any rational person would take the view that Windows 8 is a disaster ...Too many such sites cover almost only (mostly imaginary) cons, because any any pro comment causes a series of silly ad-hominem attacks against its writer which deters any subsequent pro comment.

Tom: would it be out of line to point out that you decry the use of ad hominem attacks to discourage posting counter arguments, but you yourself dismiss anybody who disagrees with your premise as lacking in rationality? I get that you want to discourage the use of hyperbole (even if one doesn't love the Windows 8 interface, calling it a "disaster" may be overkill), but you seem to fall into a similar trap yourself (if one feels compelled to rail against Windows 8 then one must be an irrational person).

Steve, no it wouldn't be out of line. I might point out though that it would be inaccurate though.

I think my words make it pretty plain that I think rational people are taking a view that I find incomprehensible - and that's not saying that anyone is lacking in rationality; if it were irrational people doing it, why on earth would I be concerned as to why a rational person would do it?

If I thought that people taking the view that Windows 8 is a disaster were actually irrational I wouldn't think it difficult to understand what all the fuss is about, would I? The point is that many (almost certainly most, and very possible all) people taking that view actually are rational people, and I can't understand why they do take that view. It is puzzling. If only someone would explain what the problem[s] is/are and why they are so product-shatteringly critical instead of just repeating "it's a terrible disaster" or some such, it would help; but that's something I haven't seen (although I've seen things purporting to be that, I'm not at all sure that any has been a genuine attempt to actually do it).

When someone says "touch is terrible, it gives me a pain in the arm" my first reaction is "so what, it works with any form of pointing device I've come across so there's no need to use touch at all"; so my second reaction is "this whole touch thing is a red herring, it can't explain why someone thinks Windows 8 is a terrible disaster"; my third reaction is "claiming that touch makes windows 8 a terrible disaster is obvious nonsense; I don't understand why anyone would make that claim". Either I can assume the person is nuts, or I can wonder and ask why he or she, a rational person, makes that nonsensical claim. It's better to do the latter, since I could be wrong; for example maybe the introduction of touch has done something I don't know about - maybe there are some things than can no longer be done with a mouse. So I ask: "why does a rational person do it?". I have been presented with no argument that comes anywhere near convincing me that there is even the slightest justification for saying that Windows 8 is a terrible disaster (there are of course several things wrong with it; for example the home and student edition forces you to log out when switching between logins; but they are nowhere near serious enough to make it a terrible disaster, and some of them are just perpetuating some of Windows 7's minor nuisances so don't count when as Windows 8 deficiencies when comparing the two operating systems) so I have to ask the question.

I can't speak to the desktop version however I have a Windows Phone with windows 8 on it. I also have a MS Touch. I find that there are few minor annoyances with things but I find some things about every OS (all previous Windows, Linux, iOS, Android) that are annoying.

Overall I am very happy with my phone. The responsiveness is very quick and there has been none of that annoying lag so common with Androids. The "closed system" is similar to the iPhone which I find kind of annoying. The only real gripe I have is that there is only 1 sound channel. This is major oversight that is just completely stupid. If I am at my desk listening to music on my headphones and the phone rings, it rings on the speaker of the phone so the whole office hears it. Another annoyance of the volume is that if the ringer volume is all the way down you can't hear voicemail until you turn it up.

The lack of apps is somewhat of an issue but that is a user issue and not a fault of the phone.

For the Touch I do not have the newer version of the OS. I have the older and much less expensive version. I don't use this for work, it just personal. I use it at Cub Scout meetings and things like that. For those types of purposes it is really nice. A small tablet that behaves like an iPad but has an actual keyboard. I use OneNote and it syncs to the cloud automatically so I can retrieve the same file from my desktop at work so I can print minutes.

I do think that I would find the interface incredibly annoying on a desktop but for a handheld touch screen the UI is about the easiest I have used.

I think my words make it pretty plain that I think rational people are taking a view that I find incomprehensible - and that's not saying that anyone is lacking in rationality; if it were irrational people doing it, why on earth would I be concerned as to why a rational person would do it?

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. I was reading your original statement as parsing like this: I can't understand why a rational person would consider Windows 8 a disaster, therefore anyone making such a claim must be irrational. I see your point that you were simply acknowledging that you don't understand their reasons for that opinion, but I thought the phrasing was a designed to raise a doubt as to their rationality. Sorry if I misread it.

L' Eomot Inversé (5/20/2013)I simply can't understand why any rational person would take the view that Windows 8 is a disaster ...Too many such sites cover almost only (mostly imaginary) cons, because any any pro comment causes a series of silly ad-hominem attacks against its writer which deters any subsequent pro comment.

Tom: would it be out of line to point out that you decry the use of ad hominem attacks to discourage posting counter arguments, but you yourself dismiss anybody who disagrees with your premise as lacking in rationality? I get that you want to discourage the use of hyperbole (even if one doesn't love the Windows 8 interface, calling it a "disaster" may be overkill), but you seem to fall into a similar trap yourself (if one feels compelled to rail against Windows 8 then one must be an irrational person).

Steve, you make a good point, but to be fair, Tom was attacked first. Patrick was less than kind in his phrasing.

On a side note, my gaming rig still runs Vista (yes, it's that old). It's about to be upgraded in the next month or two which means I'm getting Windows 8, so I've just started to look into the review sites. I have no idea if they're right or not yet.

- Craig Farrell

Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

Evil Kraig F (5/21/2013)On a side note, my gaming rig still runs Vista (yes, it's that old). It's about to be upgraded in the next month or two which means I'm getting Windows 8, so I've just started to look into the review sites. I have no idea if they're right or not yet.

Don't feel too bad. My "gaming rig" is running XP Pro. Unlike you I have no immediate upgrade plans. Of course the lack of an upgrade plan is mostly because there really aren't any games that interest me at the moment.